Oh, wait…it was a TSA agent. Sorry; it’s hard to tell the difference between what happened to Tabitha Hale yesterday at the Houston airport and what Herman Cain’s been accused of.

She started by asking me to take my cardigan off. I said I’d rather not. She seemed put out, but didn’t make me remove it and began the pat down from behind. She made me lift up my cardigan to check my back, went into my sleeves, and touched every inch of my hair.

Then she got to my waist band. I had on black tights under my dress, which I’m certain is not uncommon. She asked me to lift my dress so she could check the waistband of my tights.

I felt my stomach drop. I said “I’m not lifting my dress for you. No way.” She was obviously irritated with me now and said that she would take me to the private screening area if I would like.

I said “No, absolutely not. If you can’t do this in front of everyone, you should not be doing this to me.”

She then called a manager over. The manager approached me and explained what they were going to do and that if I failed to comply, they would escort me from the airport. I told her I saw no reason that they should have to lift my dress to clear me to get on a plane. I would have, however, allowed them to escort me out of the airport before they got me to lift my skirt and stick their hands down my tights. I was bracing myself to spend another night in Texas.

She sensed the rebellion in me, and it was almost like they were punishing me for not just lifting my dress and making their lives easier. She checked every inch of my neckline, sticking her fingers between my breasts because she needed to “clear” the (very slight) ruffle.

They cleared the waistband of my tights through my dress, then made me put one leg forward at a time so they could get better “definition of my thigh.” She then proceded to pat down every inch of me, all the way up to my crotch. And yes, she used that word. Twice.

You have to wonder about the thought process of the TSA agent. Why did she find the waistband of a pair of tights so problematic? Seriously, what could you conceal under this waistband?

It’s not as though the waistband is bulky; on the contrary, it’s comparable to the waistband on a pair of panty hose and much less so than that of a pair of granny panties. Are TSA agents reaching down inside the pants of elderly women to check those out? I doubt it; I mean, where’s the fun in accosting old people unless you can leave someone soaked in urine?

Moving on from that, did she really expect that Tabitha would lift her dress in public? Have other women done so when requested?

Speaking as the mother of a (dare I say it?) beautiful and shapely young woman who flies across the country several times a year, I find this very disturbing. I fail to see any pressing security concerns centered around the almost non-existant waistband of a pair of tights. TSA refuses to take steps that would actually improve airline safety, such as skipping over toddlers of the WASP persuasion to focus on people who might actually be terrorists.

Instead, U.S. citizens are being systematically desensitized to clear violations of their 4th Amendment rights and told it’s for their own good. Personally, I don’t see what good can come of it.

Like this:

My favorite part is where he tells the TSA public relations representative, “…Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I’ll spend to find out how to get people more of it.”

Like this:

Do you think the TSA, under the direction of Janet Napolitano, cares what the American public thinks about grossly invasive and, in my opinion, unconstitutional airport screenings? Think again.

Despite viral objections to new technology and procedures, the Transportation Security Administration PLANS NO RETREAT on airport screening, officials tell [POLITICO] Playbook. But the administration is having conversations with pilots’ unions about their loud objections to the full-body scanners and alternate patdowns, and a resolution is expected this week. As Thanksgiving approaches, look for more 9-11 families and other “security validators” to make the case in the media for rigorous screening. The fire on this story was lit by Drudge, along with CNN and USA Today, and the complaints by pilots were a propellant. Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano scored a front-page headline, story and photo in USA Today on Monday with her call for patience and vigilance by the traveling public.

Apparently the answer to that provocative question is yes if you consider that U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan were prohibited from searching women and children.

A US Army staff sergeant, now serving in Afghanistan, writes about the new enhanced pat-down procedure from the TSA. Summary of his very powerful message: to avoid giving gross offense to the Afghan public, and to prevent the appearance of an uncontrolled security state, the US military forbids use on Afghan civilians of the very practices the TSA is now making routine for civilian travelers at US airports.

Back home in the U.S. though, we have this happening at airports around the country.

I find it astonishing and rather sad that we’ve become such a nation of sheep that we willingly line up to be publicly humiliated by ill-trained, poorly screened and sometimes power-hungry agents of the United States government. If TSA’s new full body scanners and “enhanced” pat-down procedures (and a truly disturbing personal story here) don’t qualify as unreasonable searches, what would? If we don’t have the gumption to stand against egregious over-reaching by the government, who will?

The Other McCain tells us who – apart from ourselves – we have to blame for this sorry state of affairs.

Honestly, sometimes one has to wonder. Take the case of Sal Esposito. Sal applied to be excused from jury duty and was denied. Sal’s situation? He’s a cat.

Okay, I’ll give you that Sal’s owners share some responsibility for this situation; they should have just written, “Sal is a cat,” on the original application to be excused. Although you’d think that not speaking English would be enough to disqualify him. Maybe this is a partial explanation for the sad state of our legal system.

Mikey Hicks, Terrorist. Yeah, watch out for Mikey...he's a mean one.

Or take the case of Mikey Hicks. He’s the 8-year-old who’s subjected to full pat-down searches each time he flies because he shares a name with someone on a government watch list. Mikey doesn’t like being touched in “certain spots.” Who can blame him?

It’s enough to make you think that IQ testing prior to employment with a government agency might not be a bad idea. Of course, that discounts the theory that these people were once of average intelligence, their brains now turned to jelly through constant exposure to government regulations. I can see how that might happen.

These stories serve as illustrations as to why I don’t want a government bureaucrat anywhere near my health care; I’ll take an insurance company bureaucrat any day. Why? Because when the government flubs a call, you have very little recourse. Take Mikey; he’s been getting special attention at airports since he was two years old! It’s hard to believe that in the ensuing six years, his situation couldn’t have been flagged in a (hopefully) sophisticated database.